A Roman Catholic on the Trinity

rrobs said:

Do you think there even is an ultimate truth?

Click to expand...

Yes, but I'm not sure what that may be. As a scientist, we work with evidence, evidence, evidence, but in some areas evidence is hard to come by.

So, see "My Faith Statement" at the bottom of my posts and you'll see that being reflected.

How about you?

URAVIP2ME said:

Sure Christians are saved, but I find that does Not mean 'once saved always saved' because as Jesus said at Matthew 24:13 we must endure to the end in order to be saved.

Click to expand...

You may be correct. I haven´t come to a firm conclusion on this

Yes, I understand the JW position on this. However, I think it is very significant that Christ used a term that clearly identifies The Spirit as an individual being.

Do you not think that He was aware of the very discussion subject you and I are discussing ?

Wouldn´t He be perfectly clear as to what he meant and not be purposely confusing ?

URAVIP2ME said:

Sure Christians are saved, but I find that does Not mean 'once saved always saved' because as Jesus said at Matthew 24:13 we must endure to the end in order to be saved.

Click to expand...

Also the Parable of the Sower and the Seed covers that plus Paul telling the flock to try and bring back those whom have fallen away from the faith. .

metis said:

Yes, but I'm not sure what that may be. As a scientist, we work with evidence, evidence, evidence, but in some areas evidence is hard to come by.

So, see "My Faith Statement" at the bottom of my posts and you'll see that being reflected.

How about you?

Click to expand...

Thanks for the candid reply. Sometimes that is hard to come by in these forums. I don't know why, it's just something I've noticed.

I read your faith statement and it reminded me of an incident the Apostle Paul had while walking the streets of Athens. He saw many statues of their various gods. Finally he found one that was dedicated to "The Unknown God."

Acts 17:23,

First of all, I'm not accusing anybody of ignorance. I think if the context is taken into account, Paul was simply saying they didn't know who this god was. Certainly not a sentence to eternal punishment. As the verse said, Paul proceeded to declare to them the God of the scriptures. Don't worry, I'm not about to launch into a diatribe about why you must believe in that God. I just thought it was an interesting anecdote in light of your faith statement.

I myself have been a huge fan of the scriptures as a source of truth for some time now.

I have seen plenty of evidence that they are true. Perhaps the evidence I refer to is not quite as objective as that required by science, but evidence nonetheless. Sometimes evidence can be a slippery thing.

John 16:13,

Jesus was referring to the events that took place soon after on the day of Pentecost, which events are recorded in the 2nd chapter of the book of Acts. That was the first time anybody received the spirit of truth Jesus had spoken of. There were 3,000 people that day that saw enough evidence for them to abandon their old beliefs and accept the scriptures as true.

According to 1 Corinthians 12:7-10, that spirit, which itself is invisible (hence I understand to be unqualified as scientific evidence), can be manifested into the senses world in 9 different ways. I've seen enough of that to believe it is true. That is why I accept the scriptures as truth.

Take care.

rrobs said:

Thanks for the candid reply. Sometimes that is hard to come by in these forums. I don't know why, it's just something I've noticed.

I read your faith statement and it reminded me of an incident the Apostle Paul had while walking the streets of Athens. He saw many statues of their various gods. Finally he found one that was dedicated to "The Unknown God."

Acts 17:23,

For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, To The Unknown God. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you.
​

First of all, I'm not accusing anybody of ignorance. I think if the context is taken into account, Paul was simply saying they didn't know who this god was. Certainly not a sentence to eternal punishment. As the verse said, Paul proceeded to declare to them the God of the scriptures. Don't worry, I'm not about to launch into a diatribe about why you must believe in that God. I just thought it was an interesting anecdote in light of your faith statement.

I myself have been a huge fan of the scriptures as a source of truth for some time now.

I have seen plenty of evidence that they are true. Perhaps the evidence I refer to is not quite as objective as that required by science, but evidence nonetheless. Sometimes evidence can be a slippery thing.

John 16:13,

Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, [that] shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.
​

Jesus was referring to the events that took place soon after on the day of Pentecost, which events are recorded in the 2nd chapter of the book of Acts. That was the first time anybody received the spirit of truth Jesus had spoken of. There were 3,000 people that day that saw enough evidence for them to abandon their old beliefs and accept the scriptures as true.

According to 1 Corinthians 12:7-10, that spirit, which itself is invisible (hence I understand to be unqualified as scientific evidence), can be manifested into the senses world in 9 different ways. I've seen enough of that to believe it is true. That is why I accept the scriptures as truth.

Take care.

Click to expand...

I believe there is Something, and it's at least hypothetically possible you may well be right. However, even the "Something" was not easy for me to arrive at until a series of events that I finally realized simply could not be coincidence told me that there must be something beyond this physical realm.

Thanks for your kind words, btw, as that also is at times is a rare event here.

rrobs said:

I copied the quote by Orwell for my notes. Brilliant!

The general concept of faith is a funny thing. It is generally taken to mean that if something can't be explained in terms that a logical person understand in everyday terms, then it must be taken "by faith." It is often called "blind faith."

Faith is actually quit the opposite. We are likely to lend money to a friend with whom we familiar and know to be trustworthy. We have faith they will pay us back so we lend them the money. On the other hand, we are unlikely to lend money to someone about whom we know little. We do not have faith that we will bet re-payed.

Faith is the result of knowledge and familiarity. We have faith in things we know to be trustworthy. We have faith to sit down on a chair because by experience we know it won't let is fall onto the floor and get hurt. If a complete stranger, told me to close my eyes and sit down on a chair that I didn't see for myself but that they assured me was there, I'm not so sure how much faith I'd have in that situation. I might not sit.

Blind faith is just that; blind. I know people say they believe in a trinity, but it is really quite impossible to do so.

And yes, you are absolutely right in saying trinitarians are not guilty of deception. It is they themselves who have been deceived by 2,000 years of tradition. I'm often told I'm not saved because I don't believe the trinity. I'd never take upon myself the role of judge and jury and say a trinitarian is not saved. I'd never say that anybody is not saved, including a Muslim such as yourself. God determines the fate of every man. People look on the exterior, God looks on the heart.

Take care.

Click to expand...

Hello again.

Yes, it’s an excellent piece of thinking on Orwell’s part. Glad you liked it.

I prefer to use the word ‘trust’ rather than ‘faith’. I lend money to a friend because experience has convinced me that he will pay it back. On one level I trust him; on a deeper level, I trust my judgement about him.

Allow me to share this:

I was raised as a Baptist in Tynewydd (Rhondda). In the 1920’s a number of Italian families moved into Glamorgan and set up shops and cafes. One of these families (the Bassini’s) settled in Tynewydd.

When Italy declared war, and joined with Germany, the UK government issued an internment order against those it deemed to be ‘enemy civilians’. This included the Bassini’s. The husband (I knew him as Jack) was taken away, but his wife and children were allowed to remain in their home (they had a café and a fish and chip shop next to each other).

One day, my paternal grandfather was returning from work, only to discover a mob hurling abuse (and stones) at the Bassini’s and their home; at people they had once called friends. My grandfather told the mob to stop, and they did. Many years later the family’s eldest daughter (Maria) was accepted into the Carmelite Order, and my grandfather and grandmother were invited to attend the ceremony. A great honour.

My grandfather was an Elder at Blaencwm Chapel. The Elders employed the Minister. When I was a teenager, one Minister came to my grandfather’s house. He was treated like royalty. My grandfather called him ‘Sir’. Later, I asked my grandfather why he had called this man ‘Sir’ after all, he was the Minister’s boss!

My grandfather smiled, and said: ‘I’m just an Elder. The Minister speaks the Word!’

When my grandfather died, several hundred men – of all ages – attended his funeral (women did not do so in those days). They filled the cemetery chapel, and many were weeping openly.

My grandfather was able to calm a howling mob – and move the hearts of many – not because of any legal authority (he had none), but because of his character; because of the person he was. He lived his Faith as it was meant to be lived. A Christian would say that he reflected the love of Jesus; and that it was this that made him a shining beacon to others. I would say that he reflected the love of God. He led by example rather than by argument.

Although I can no longer share all of my grandfather’s theology he remains, by far, the finest man I ever met.

By the way, he left school as the age of ten to work in the mines (illegal by that time, but who was to tell). Using the local Miners’ Institute - centres of learning at that time - and being a book-worm, he learned - among other things - both Hebrew and Greek. His second great passion - Faith and Family together being his first - was music. Able to play both violin and piano - and to transpose written music into tonic-solfa for those who could not read music - he was appointed Musical Director of the Glanselsig Amateur Operatic Society. His favourite work was Handel’s Messiah. I can see him now, dressed in his black evening suit, white shirt, black dickie-bow, conducting a full chorus and orchestra, with his white baton; with every word, every note engraved in his heart. I have his baton, but none of his talent!

He taught me the value of learning – book learning, especially. As you know, knowledge is the life-blood of judgement; and judgement is the father of trust. The more I learned about my grandfather the more certain my judgement became – that here was a man to be trusted.

I was a Trinitarian for over sixty years. For all of that time I judged the doctrine to be true. Only when new ideas (new for me, that is) entered my head did I begin to question my judgement. The process of change was long, and difficult. Today, I cannot see myself going back; but who knows what new ideas might come tomorrow!

Very best regards.

metis said:

Also the Parable of the Sower and the Seed covers that plus Paul telling the flock to try and bring back those whom have fallen away from the faith. .

Click to expand...

Also, I find the parable or illustration about the 99 sheep shows to look after the missing one.
Even Paul was concerned that he himself might end up a castaway at 1 Corinthians 9:27.
That is why Paul recommends at 1 Corinthians 10:12 for us to take heed lest one should fall (away).
So, it is No wonder that Jesus said at Matthew 24:13 to endure to the end if one wants to be saved.
For those still living, ' saved/delivered/rescued ' through the coming great tribulation of Revelation 7:14.

shmogie said:

...... However, I think it is very significant that Christ used a term that clearly identifies The Spirit as an individual being.
Do you not think that He was aware of the very discussion subject you and I are discussing ?
Wouldn´t He be perfectly clear as to what he meant and not be purposely confusing ?

Click to expand...

I am Not sure which term you have in mind.
Where was Jesus purposely confusing __________
To me it is Not confusing that God's spirit was in Job's nose at Job 27:3. Surely, No person was in Job's nostrils.

rrobs said:

That's not how the ancient Hebrew saw it. To them a god was anybody with supreme authority. The Bible was written a long time ago to a culture much different than our modern West. We need to understand things they way they saw them. Please do some of your own research on what the ancient Hebrew considered a god to be. Just use Google. Maybe you'll believe somebody else besides me.

Click to expand...

Which “ancient Hebrew” eye do you suggest I look through? The polytheist who bowed before other gods from time to time or the later strict monotheist Jew of Jesus’ time who did not?

rrobs said:

Despicable or not, God nonetheless called them gods.

Click to expand...

Calling something god doesn't make that something god. God referred to Baal as a God, but that did not make Baal God. As I stated previously, it is men who makes gods because only God is God.

rrobs said:

He called Satan a god (2 Cor 4:4). They don't come much more despicable than Satan!

Click to expand...

I’m not seeing the point. Satan is just as much false God as Baal. All gods are despicable which is why God judges them, from gods of "great authority" that men make of stick and stones to the gods of "great authority" that men make of flesh. All are false idols before God.

rrobs said:

There have been and still are many despicable people who nonetheless posses great authority. To the ancient Hebrew that person would be a god because of the authority they held.

Click to expand...

The ancient Hebrews practiced a form of polytheism called monolatry. By the time of Christ they were certainly monotheistic. The early Christians were strict monotheists but never polytheists.


No one is making scripture say "hypostatic union". The only thing I'm saying is that the concept of a hypostatic union can be found in scripture. You even found it yourself.

What you are telling us here is that unless an author writes the word “plot” there is no “plot” in the story.

That is the type of rock solid “reasoning” one expects to find in a Watchtower magazine, so I can’t help but marvel how such “reasoning” comes independently from you. It leads me to suspect, however wrongly, that you may have used their literature during your personal research as a "study guide".

rrobs said:

We certainly don't build a doctrine on any of those words.

Click to expand...

That is absurd. As soon as you posted this thread you declared your own Christology.

And who is this “we”? Aren’t you a church of one?

rrobs said:

Where does it say, "Jesus is fully God?" If the trinity was so important, you'd think God would have said so in plain language. But it isn't.

Click to expand...

“The Word was God”, rrobs. There Word is never “…a god”, and never implied “half-god”, or something “God-ish”.

rrobs said:

We have to invent terms such as hypostatic union, which really mean nothing at all in and of themselves. The word is only found in reference to a trinity.

Click to expand...

Not exactly...
Hypostatic union came in response to the heresies which became rampant in the early church... many of which you espouse here.

rrobs said:

People's actions do not determine truth.

Click to expand...

But I didn't ask whether it determined truth. I asked if Caesar was one person or two because of his dual nature.

You appear to have a habit of rephrasing assertions as strawmen so you can better knock them over. I realize this may only be my perception and not truly based on fact, but I can only go by how you rephrase my assertions.

So let me remind you of what you stated earlier:


If, as you say, there is "no hint that the two are somehow one" how can you now say that believers have a dual nature? Wouldn’t that be the hint you claim was impossible earlier?

rrobs said:

I think if you read my posts you would see I certainly give honor to Jesus, much more than trinitarians actually.

Click to expand...

Another Strawman…the question was not whether you give honor. The question asked is whether we are to give the SAME honor to Jesus that we give the Father:


If you honor God with worship, then you must honor Jesus with the same…not with a different, half-hearted, or casual worship, but the same equal worship!

So let’s ask it again…do you honor Jesus with the same worship you honor God, or should we throw John 5:23 under the bus?

rrobs said:

For God to obey Himself and believe He would raise Himself from the dead is no big deal. After all, He's God. He's not going to doubt Himself. But for a man to obey, despite experiencing the same temptations as the rest of us is another story altogether.

Click to expand...

It’s the same biblical story.

rrobs said:

Jesus didn't want to die on the cross. He asked God to take the cup away from him. But he ended up saying, "not my will, but thine be done." Making him God cheapens his accomplishment to the max.

Click to expand...

Actually making him just a man means the only person he could redeem was himself. Where in the Old Testament does it say that any guy who keeps the Law gets to redeem mankind?

rrobs said:

If anybody doesn't honor Jesus it would be trinitarians, but I don't want to judge anybody. I'm just saying.

Click to expand...

This doesn't tell me whether you give the same honor to the Son as you do the Father. If you keep avoiding the question the readers here will have no choice but to take it as a dodge.

rrobs said:

As born again believers, you and I are sons of God (1 John 3:2). I don't think of myself as God and I trust you concur.

Click to expand...

Sons of God and Son of God are not the same, but yes, we concur.

rrobs said:

So all frogs are really one frog?

Click to expand...

We are talking about nature, not amounts.

The son of frog is by nature frog, the son of dog is by nature dog, the Son of Man is by nature man, and the Son of God is by nature God.

Jesus is the only person declared Son of God and Son of Man, so Jesus has a dual nature.

There is no need to illogically conclude that son of dog must be frog any more than to conclude Son of God must be man. It’s very simple to follow, logical and rather basic. The son of dog will always be dog, the son of man will always me man, and the son of God will always be God.

rrobs said:

So do we. We came into this world with a flesh nature. At our new birth we received a divine nature (2 Pet 1:4). We now have two natures. I trust you understand none of us are God.

Click to expand...

We become partakers of the divine nature but we don't become divine ourselves.

rrobs said:

A dual degreed person doesn't make them God.

Click to expand...

That's good to know but who on this forum claimed otherwise?

rrobs said:

By saying that the man Jesus is also God you say that God is also a man.

Num 23:19(a),

God [is] not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do [it]? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?

Click to expand...

You walk right up to the precipice then you gloss over the verse!

This verse tells us that men lie and that the son of man should repent. So if this verse tells you Jesus is not God, then it should also tell you he is not Man...unless you can show us where Jesus lied and/or had to repent.

rrobs said:

1Sam 15:29,

And also the Strength of Israel will not lie nor repent: for he [is] not a man, that he should repent.

Click to expand...

I'm not following your line of reasoning here.

rrobs said:

I've covered dual natures before. Born again believers have a dual nature (flesh and spirit), Jesus has a dual nature (flesh and spirit). God does not have a dual nature. He is spirit, period.

John 4:24,

God [is] a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship [him] in spirit and in truth.

Deut 6:4,

Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God [is] one LORD:

While Jesus and all born again believers have a dual nature, there is no hint of a duality in God.

Click to expand...

Think of the consequences of your conclusions rrobs.

Jesus has a dual nature, God and man, precisely because we needed someone with a dual nature to mediate our dispute with God.

I think I covered this before. If there is a dispute between a duck and a goat, you don't hire a cow to settle it. The cow cannot relate to either the duck or goat. If you hire another duck, the goat will claim bias, and if you hire a goat the duck will claim bias.

Jesus was able to mediate precisely because he was God and Man. He is not half-god or half-man because such an entity would be neither duck or goat, but fully God and fully Man because that's the only mediator that could serve as mediator.

In short, your conclusion leaves mankind without a mediator.

rrobs said:

Not everything Peter said was true. If he was correct in his assertion, then God was wrong to say Jesus grew in wisdom.

Click to expand...

No, not at all. Jesus had a dual nature. Peter was correct to say Jesus knows all things and God was correct in saying Jesus grew in wisdom.

Let me ask you something: Where exactly was Jesus prior to the womb in Mary? In an earlier post you stated Jesus was “not in the beginning”.

rrobs said:

If language means anything at all, the same person can't know everything and yet grow in wisdom. It's one or the other. It can't be both. I think that belief in the trinity requires that a person accept many contradictory concepts.

Click to expand...

We can only go by what scripture tells us. I think you believe that the Trinity has "many contradictory concepts" because it was never properly explained to you. I had the same misgivings before taking on my own study. I had to deconstruct the straw men I had been fed.

rrobs said:

It says Jesus was in the form of God. It doesn't say he was God. Jesus did have the spirit of God upon him. That's what happened when he was baptized by John.

Click to expand...

No one has the form of God but God. There is no one to compare God to and none other like Him. Man was made in the image of God, but not His form.

rrobs said:

The words "did not consider equality with God something to be grasped" do not mean Jesus thought he was God. Quite the opposite really. He didn't think that equality with God was something he ought not to go for, to grasp.

Click to expand...

I’m not following your reasoning here. If Jesus didn’t think that equality with God was something he ought to grasp, then how can you say this is the opposite of the words “did not consider equality with God something to be grasped”???

rrobs said:

Read the next few verses and you will see that because he did that and obeyed even to the death of the cross, God exulted him. God needs to be exalted? That doesn't make sense.

Click to expand...

Let’s put this comment in perspective. I’ve just told you Jesse is a plumber and an electrician. The pipes freeze and I tell you I’m calling Jesse to fix the pipes.

And you respond with “Why are you calling an electrician”???

Are you really having a problem understanding the concept of “dual nature”? One moment you appear to understand it (as you did with believers), but then when it's convenient you claim bafflement as you do here with Jesus. What's so hard about understanding that as Son of God he is God and that as Son of Man he is man? That is the hypostatic union. I don't mind going into more detail, but not if you're simply stonewalling.

I can understand your disagreement with the hypostatic union @rrobs, but not the bafflement.

The term is HE, used repeatedly in reference to The Spirit, HE. If Christ didn´t mean a HE, and knew he was referring to power, or a force, why not use the correct term ?

URAVIP2ME said:

First, I find the Bible was Not written in King James English.
The same Greek grammar rule applies at John 1:1 and at Acts of the Apostles 28:6 B.
The letter 'a' was inserted at Acts, but KJV omitted it at John 1.
Plus, at John 1:2 John writes that pre-human Jesus was ' with ' God . 'With' indicating another person.
As you continue reading at John 1:18 John says No man has seen God at any time. People saw Jesus.
See also 1 John 4:12 and Exodus 33:20.
At John 6:46 John writes 'Not that any man has seen the Father'. People saw Jesus.
So, pre-human Jesus did Not send himself to Earth, but his God sent (gifted) Jesus to Earth for us.

Click to expand...

I have many translations, and they are consistent, there is no A in Jn. 1:1 except in the NWT.

Of course Jesus is a separate being within the Godhead, he isn´t the Father.

The Father sent Jesus with his agreement to the earth

rrobs said:

While a popular "proof" of the trinity, this section in Philippians does not prove the trinity in any way, shape, or form.

Click to expand...

Let's stay focused rrobs! We were discussing what is meant by “hypostatic union”, not the Trinity, remember? If you can’t understand a concept simply because you don’t already agree with it there is little point in discussion.

rrobs said:

Jesus was given that authority by God. It was not something he possessed on his own.

Click to expand...

Jesus as man had to be given authority, Jesus as God did not. We spoke about the dual nature of Christ before. If Jesus used the authority He had before he became man (as the devil tempted him to do) then he would no longer be man nor able to redeem us. That is why the authority had to come from the Father.

rrobs said:

There is no mention of a trinity until many, many years after the death of Jesus. That is simply because Christianity was unique, like Israel, in believing in one God and one God only. But, little by little the pagans from the mystery religions brought their perverted concept of three gods in one into the Christian doctrine. Little by little the leaders of the now perverted church accepted the beliefs of these pagans in order to increase membership. I suppose it greatly enhanced the balance of their coffers, but that is just my supposition. I do know the love of money is the root of all evil. The worship of a pagan trinity is certainly considered an evil to God, so I'm just putting 2 and 2 together.

Click to expand...

Apparently you put the wrong 2 and 2 together otherwise Tritheism rather than Trinitarianism would be the majority viewpoint of Christians today.

It would also mean Tritheists are vastly underrepresented on this board. Where are they?

rrobs said:

For the life of me, I don't understand how anybody could accept the authority of an organization that brutally killed untold number of simple folks who simply disagreed with their devilish doctrine. I was once Roman Catholic, 12 years in Catholic school, 1 hour of religion, 5 days a week.

Click to expand...

rrobs said:

I know the verbiage, but I have long since abandoned it for the truth of God's wonderful matchless word.

Click to expand...

From my perspective you do not appear to know or understand the “verbiage”. In your most recent post to me you claimed you don’t build doctrines of Christology...then went merrily on your way making declarative statements on the nature of Christ! How does that happen?

You also appear to have confused nature with amounts when you asked “So all frogs are really one frog?” and when you apparently confused a dual natured person with two people, and certainly when you spiritually slurred Trinitarians by declaring them Tritheists!

Lastly, I am to suppose you did this whilst claiming to have no “theological doctrine” whatsoever because such a combination of “man-made” words are not found in the bible.

Yes, I could be wrong, but I find it all quite amazing.

URAVIP2ME said:

I am Not sure which term you have in mind.
Where was Jesus purposely confusing __________
To me it is Not confusing that God's spirit was in Job's nose at Job 27:3. Surely, No person was in Job's nostrils.

Click to expand...

Where was Jesus confusing? See Mark chapter 4 verses 11, 12. Jesus said He used parables so people would NOT understans. That was purposely being confusing. He did not want everyone to understand and it looks like He did a good job.

Oeste said:

Let's stay focused rrobs! We were discussing what is meant by “hypostatic union”, not the Trinity, remember? If you can’t understand a concept simply because you don’t already agree with it there is little point in discussion.

Click to expand...

I have an idea; let's wait until Christ returns and gathers us together and then we'll resume our conversation on who Jesus is. We'll both have a better handle on things at that time. I sincerely look forward to that day. God bless.

shmogie said:

The term is HE, used repeatedly in reference to The Spirit, HE.

Click to expand...

In Greek grammar rules the masculine gender is acceptable for a neuter 'it '.
Even today we refer to a car or a ship as a ' she ' although ' it 'remains a neuter 'it '.
New KJV changed ' it ' to 'him ' at Romans 8:16 and Romans 8:26.
That change does Not make God's spirit a person.
At Numbers 11:17 and Numbers 11:25 the spirit ' it ' upon them, God gave His spirit ' it ' to the 70 elders.
Plus, when one pours out something, one does Not pour out a person, so the people of Acts of the Apostles 2:4 were Not all 'filled' with a person, but filled with God's powerful spirit - Psalms 104:30.
So, when God pours out His spirit - Proverbs 1:23 - He is Not pouring out a person. - Acts of the Apostles 2:17.

rrobs said:

I have an idea; let's wait until Christ returns and gathers us together and then we'll resume our conversation on who Jesus is. We'll both have a better handle on things at that time. I sincerely look forward to that day. God bless.

Click to expand...

Like you I too would like to see all of us gathered together, but we can Not resume our conversation at the future time of Christ's glory time because by that coming ' time of separation ' on Earth at Matthew 25:31-33,37,40 the conversation will be over.
Jesus will have done the separating with only those judged as humble ' sheep ' will remain.
To me, Jesus, who dos Not lie, is clear as to who he is in his answer as found at John 10:36.
His answer was the perfect opportunity to let them and us know who he is.

From John's gospel:

John 14:[16] And I will pray the Father, and he will give you another Counselor, to be with you for ever,
[17] even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him; you know him, for he dwells with you, and will be in you.
[18]"I will not leave you desolate; I will come to you.
[19] Yet a little while, and the world will see me no more, but you will see me; because I live, you will live also.
[20] In that day you will know that I am in my Father, and you in me, and I in you.
[21] He who has my commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves me; and he who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I will love him and manifest myself to him."
[22] Judas (not Iscariot) said to him, "Lord, how is it that you will manifest yourself to us, and not to the world?"
[23] Jesus answered him, "If a man loves me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him.
[24] He who does not love me does not keep my words; and the word which you hear is not mine but the Father's who sent me.
[25]"These things I have spoken to you, while I am still with you.
[26] But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.


Note that the reference is to a separate Entity [underlined parts] but is sent from God through Jesus' wishes. Therefore, it cannot be viewed as being just "God's spirit" as if it was just a part of His personality.

lostwanderingsoul said:

Where was Jesus confusing? See Mark chapter 4 verses 11, 12. Jesus said He used parables so people would NOT understans. That was purposely being confusing. He did not want everyone to understand and it looks like He did a good job.

Click to expand...

I find if we continue reading to Mark 4:33-34 Jesus did expound to the people who really wanted to know.
Thus, Jesus would explain to anyone who wanted to know - Matthew 13:34-36.
So, to those Not seeking those parables or illustration were just nice stories with No application necessary or needed.
The good news kingdom message of Matthew 24:14; Acts 1:8 is for everyone who wants to understand.
Remember Acts of the Apostles 17:27 because God is only a prayer away from everyone of us.

URAVIP2ME said:

Like you I too would like to see all of us gathered together, but we can Not resume our conversation at the future time of Christ's glory time because by that coming ' time of separation ' on Earth at Matthew 25:31-33,37,40 the conversation will be over.
Jesus will have done the separating with only those judged as humble ' sheep ' will remain.
To me, Jesus, who dos Not lie, is clear as to who he is in his answer as found at John 10:36.
His answer was the perfect opportunity to let them and us know who he is.

Click to expand...

I know. John 10:36 is pretty clear, but people like to read "God the Son" instead of "Son of God." I guess tradition is a powerful force. It can even undo the the scriptures.

Matt 15:6,


With regard to Matthew 25, Jesus was speaking to Israel in the Old Testament (Christ had not yet redeemed us at that time). We, the born again believers by grace will have already been gathered together by the time Jesus was speaking of comes to pass. All of that is in 1 Thessalonians.

I also find it interesting that many take upon themselves the privilege reserved for Jesus and he alone, that of judgement, of determining where their fellow human beings will spend eternity (Dan 7:22, John 5:27). I guess if they think Jesus is God then they must think of themselves as God. As Matt 15:6 said, tradition does indeed make God's word of none effect. A downward spiral to say the least.